John Mccirick

2»

Comments

  • FM LoverFM Lover Posts: 50,668
    Forum Member
    Well his appearance on Jeremy Vine didn't do anything to change my opinion if him .

    Very rude to the other lady in the studio, shouting her down is a great way to debate.

    And what's all this rubbish about h being replaced by Claire Balding? He didn't present the racing, he was their so called racing expert/tipster. Claire in a presenter with a horse racing heritage. I am sure she will be great and, as suggested, he will probably settle out of Court for about a million.
  • charmarrcharmarr Posts: 599
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Remember seeing him on Celebrity Coach Trip.
    He was repulsive.Kept picking his nose and eating it.
    He was kicked off as soon as the others could get rid of him.
    He was horrible on Celebrity Wife Swap as well.
  • RoseAnneRoseAnne Posts: 3,200
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sexist presenter sues for ageism, oh the irony!
  • FroodFrood Posts: 13,180
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    He was on a 'casual' contract which has ended.

    Ch4 chose not to renew it.

    They were not obliged to.

    They don't have to give a reason (although "because he's an obnoxious tit" would be acceptable).

    If he takes the matter to Court he will end up looking (even more) stupid.
  • jabegyjabegy Posts: 6,201
    Forum Member
    I've only got one thing to say about the ghastly John Mccririck.............YUK!!!
  • cat666cat666 Posts: 2,063
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm not a fan of the bloke anyway, but he hasn't got a leg to stand on.

    1. He was only on a casual, rolling yearly contract.
    2. Presenters come and go. If C4 wanted to go in a new direction then they are entitled to. He's had 29 years there which is good going, and as long as they saw out/bought him out of his contract then they've done nothing wrong.
    3. He is 72. Most people are forced to retire between 60-65 whether they like it or not. Just because he is on the telly it doesn't give him special treatment.
    4. He cannot be short of a bob or two. Not really a valid legal reason, but he's had longer working than most people of his age, been on various reality shows, and still is famous enough to do more or write a book.
  • Scarlett BerryScarlett Berry Posts: 21,135
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The man is utterly repulsive, couldn't care less if I never saw him on the tv again. Yuck
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 9,517
    Forum Member
    I know someone who met him on a train once and said he stank to high heaven , probably because he hasn't changed his suit in 30 years. According to today's Times he was a freelance on a one yearly contract. I really hope C4 take this to court , and not pay him off . He hasn't got the slightest chance of winning .
  • ShappyShappy Posts: 14,531
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Wasn't he on celebrity big brother as well a few years ago? Sounds like he has done the rounds of all the "celebrity" reality shows.

    Awful man.
  • Compton_scatterCompton_scatter Posts: 2,711
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Does anyone actually like this loathsome creature?
  • sarahcssarahcs Posts: 8,734
    Forum Member
    I don't like him but if he is right and was told they were looking for a younger version of himself, they are not allowed to do that and he will win.
  • OldvinylOldvinyl Posts: 1,504
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    sarahcs wrote: »
    I don't like him but if he is right and was told they were looking for a younger version of himself, they are not allowed to do that and he will win.
    He claims they said that, but proving it is another matter.
    But he'll try because he has a 'No Win No Fee' Solicitor on the case.
  • RoseAnneRoseAnne Posts: 3,200
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Does anyone actually like this loathsome creature?

    Even his long suffering wife whom he calls 'The Booby' probably doesn't either!
  • Killary45Killary45 Posts: 1,828
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    While I am no fan of John McCirick, it is not true that he has no case because he was a freelancer whose contract had ended.

    The Miriam O'Reilly case was very similar. She was a freelancer employed by the BBC whose contract was not renewed because they wanted a younger person in her job. She went to an employment tribunal and won on the grounds of discrimination based on her age and her sex.

    The legal issue was that O'Reilly could not have sent in a substitute to do her job so she was not just a freelance. This issue of "substitution" is being used by the courts to show that just because you have a freelance contract it does not mean that you should enjoy protection against illegal discrimination on grounds of age or sex.
  • Steve_WhelanSteve_Whelan Posts: 1,986
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Frood wrote: »
    He was on a 'casual' contract which has ended.

    Ch4 chose not to renew it.

    They were not obliged to.

    They don't have to give a reason (although "because he's an obnoxious tit" would be acceptable).

    If he takes the matter to Court he will end up looking (even more) stupid.

    He was not even employed by Channel 4, he was employed by High Flyer his casual contract ended when High Flyer lost the production contract to IMG who decided on a whole new presentation team. He has no case and will be thrown on of court.
  • Killary45Killary45 Posts: 1,828
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    He was not even employed by Channel 4, he was employed by High Flyer his casual contract ended when High Flyer lost the production contract to IMG who decided on a whole new presentation team. He has no case and will be thrown on of court.

    While I understand your argument, and I hope that you are right, I do not think that it is as clear as that.

    Courts have been giving a very broad application to the idea of who is your "employer" in cases involving illegal discrimination. There does not have to be a explicit employer-employee relationship spelled out in a contract - sometimes it is merely enough to show that a person actually worked for a company and that the company paid for his services.

    An obvious example would be if an a firm insisted that the cleaning company it hired did not use black/women/old cleaners. This would breach employment law on the grounds of unlawful discrimination even though the firm was not the direct employer of the cleaners.
  • Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    All the production company needed to say was that they wanted a different slant on the programme.
    Unless his was pensionable employment where the production company also paid the employers' N.I. I can't see how anyone could consider this would be considered an "unfair dismissal" of any kind. It would be difficult to prove that any replacement filled exactly the job he was doing.
    I think "we decided we don't need a tick-tack man" should be enough.
    People in "show business" come and go. It's the nature of the job.
    He's doing himself no good, he'll make himself "unemployable" maybe he realises this already but thinks the publicity will help him.
  • Jimmy ConnorsJimmy Connors Posts: 117,524
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Shappy wrote: »
    Wasn't he on celebrity big brother as well a few years ago? Sounds like he has done the rounds of all the "celebrity" reality shows.

    Awful man.

    Yes he was. He had a massive tantrum, and then sulked for three days solid (talking to nobody) because Big Brother would not supply him with Diet Coke. :eek:
  • Killary45Killary45 Posts: 1,828
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    All the production company needed to say was that they wanted a different slant on the programme.
    Unless his was pensionable employment where the production company also paid the employers' N.I. I can't see how anyone could consider this would be considered an "unfair dismissal" of any kind. It would be difficult to prove that any replacement filled exactly the job he was doing.
    I think "we decided we don't need a tick-tack man" should be enough..

    The issue is not "unfair dismissal" but one of unlawful discrimination on the grounds of age. By and large you cannot get rid of a worker, or refuse to use them, because of their race, age, gender, pregnancy etc. There are some specific and obvious exceptions to this, but they are unlikely to apply in this case.

    The courts apply this to a "worker" rather than an "employee" so that if for example Channel 4 used an outside firm to clean its studios but said that it did not want a particular employee to work in their studios because he was black, or because she was a woman, or because he or she was too old, then they would be breaking the law, and the person discriminated against would be entitled to compensation, even though he or she had never actually been employed by Channel 4.

    McCririck's lawyer is saying that Channel 4 told the production company that they did not want him on their channel any more because he was too old. If they put that in writing then he has a good chance of winning his case.
  • Caro07Caro07 Posts: 1,264
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Killary45 wrote: »
    While I am no fan of John McCirick, it is not true that he has no case because he was a freelancer whose contract had ended.

    The Miriam O'Reilly case was very similar. She was a freelancer employed by the BBC whose contract was not renewed because they wanted a younger person in her job. She went to an employment tribunal and won on the grounds of discrimination based on her age and her sex.

    The legal issue was that O'Reilly could not have sent in a substitute to do her job so she was not just a freelance. This issue of "substitution" is being used by the courts to show that just because you have a freelance contract it does not mean that you should enjoy protection against illegal discrimination on grounds of age or sex.


    But Miriam O'Reilly was only in her early fifties at the time,2009 (she is 55 now according to wiki) and therefore much younger than the retirement age.

    While McCririck is 72 now and therefore well beyond the normal age of retirement.

    Surely companies are not expected to keep people employed until they feel ready to retire (there are lots of very spritely people in their 80's and 90's these days!). It would be logical if the ageism laws only applied up to normal retirement age and not well beyond it.
  • Mr TeacakeMr Teacake Posts: 6,593
    Forum Member
    Personally I find him hilarious. There aren't many characters like him around. Love wathcing clips of him having exchnages with pissed up punters at the race meetings.
  • jake lylejake lyle Posts: 6,146
    Forum Member
    Killary45 wrote: »
    While I am no fan of John McCirick, it is not true that he has no case because he was a freelancer whose contract had ended.

    The Miriam O'Reilly case was very similar. She was a freelancer employed by the BBC whose contract was not renewed because they wanted a younger person in her job. She went to an employment tribunal and won on the grounds of discrimination based on her age and her sex.

    The legal issue was that O'Reilly could not have sent in a substitute to do her job so she was not just a freelance. This issue of "substitution" is being used by the courts to show that just because you have a freelance contract it does not mean that you should enjoy protection against illegal discrimination on grounds of age or sex.

    She wasn't dropped her contract continued on R4, she rarely appeared on Countryfile. The head of Daytime who was the boss of Countryfile had never even heard off her until the Daily mail started to spin!

    She would have lost the EAT if the BBC had bothered to mount a proper defence but because Jay Hunt was leaving for C4 they couldn't be bothered.They just wanted it to go away and not be seen to attack the Mail's darling.

    Ben Fogle and Michaela Strachan were dropped at the same time as Miriam. Was that ageist too? Michaela is the same age as her replacement:rolleyes:
  • jake lylejake lyle Posts: 6,146
    Forum Member
    Killary45 wrote: »
    McCririck's lawyer is saying that Channel 4 told the production company that they did not want him on their channel any more because he was too old. If they put that in writing then he has a good chance of winning his case.

    As if :rolleyes: they would literally say that given all the ageism cases. They are trying to get a pay off.
  • soulloversoullover Posts: 1,515
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Madness! So a TV channel can't change it's presenters without being accused of ageism/sexism/racism etc.
    I hope he loses.
Sign In or Register to comment.